Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Police and Investigative Activity
Reference:

The current state of criminal law confiscation of property

Bargaev Damir Kamilevich

Postgraduate Student, Department of Criminal and Penal Enforcement Law, Saratov State Law Academy

410056, Russia, Saratovskaya oblast', g. G. Saratov, ul. Ul. Vol'skaya, 1, kab. 420, 421, 716

damir.bars@mail.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.25136/2409-7810.2022.2.37393

EDN:

IRNWTN

Received:

25-01-2022


Published:

04-07-2022


Abstract: The object of the study is the legal relations in the process of confiscation of property in criminal law. The subject of the study is the development of confiscation in the criminal legislation of the pre-revolutionary, Soviet and modern periods, as well as the provisions of international law, the current criminal law of a number of foreign countries, judicial acts containing the legal phenomenon under study. The purpose is to present a system of theoretical knowledge about the current state of confiscation in criminal law. The theoretical basis of the study was the work of domestic experts on the confiscation of property. In addition, dissertation and monographic studies on criminal law and other branch legal sciences were used. The empirical basis of the study was made up of materials on the number of those brought to criminal responsibility, on re-committed crimes that form a relapse, on those released from criminal liability, as well as statistical information on judicial and law enforcement activities related to the application of property confiscation in criminal legislation. The scientific novelty consists in the fact that the study will allow to establish the role, place, value of property confiscation in the declared branch of law, to determine its current state, to trace the patterns of development in criminal law, which in turn will make it possible to formulate reasonable recommendations for improving the criminal law by all interested parties.


Keywords:

confiscation of property, punishment, other measure, criminal legal impact, warning, counteraction, current state, legislation, changes, literature analysis

This article is automatically translated.

Relevance of the research topic. The centuries-old history of countering crime as an eternal negative social phenomenon continues to exist. Criminal law instruments continue to maintain leading positions in containing and minimizing the consequences of a socially negative nature. Domestic criminal legislation traditionally undergoes a significant number of changes in order to comply with changing social relations. The current state of crime, namely the last ten years, is characterized by a general tendency to reduce the number of registered criminal acts. The global policy of humanization of criminal legislation certainly has a positive impact on the formation of the legal and democratic foundations of the state. Special attention should be paid to the institution of confiscation of property, which has undergone ambiguous changes and very controversial consequences. No one should receive the proceeds of crime. This is not only an indisputable fundamental basic legislative principle, but also a moral one.

Thus, realizing the high relevance of the group of public relations we are considering, within the framework of this scientific article it is necessary to investigate the current state of the institution of confiscation of property, identify the current stages of development and develop further ways of improvement as a basis for further research.

The degree of scientific development of the research topic. A.B. Brilliantov, A.I. Vasiliev, I. M. Galperin, A. A. Zhizhilenko, Yu.N. Zagudaev, A. I. Zubkov, V. N. Ivanov, M. M. Malkin, I. L. Marogulova, A. G. Mikhaylants, A. S. Mikhlin, drew scientific interest in the confiscation of property as a special tool of criminal law protection. A. B. Stepanishchev, M. D. Shargorodsky, etc.

Special attention should be paid to the dissertation works of I. I. Golubov, V. A. Pimonov, A.V. Stepanishchev, I. M. Tsokuyeva and K. N. Shutov devoted to the confiscation of property as a type of criminal punishment; the work of N. N. Viskov on special confiscation; the works of D. Y. Borchenko, A. A. Propostin, A. I. Malyshev, E. V. Martynenko, D. V. Tolkov, V. B. Abramenko, S. Yu. Samoilova, R. A. Khachaka, O. V. Kurlaeva devoted to the confiscation of property as another measure of a criminal nature.

Methodology and methods of research. The basic universal method of studying society and thinking in their development is applied – dialectical. Special attention is paid to the statistical method by which the necessary official data are obtained and investigated to confirm the hypothesis of improving the institution of confiscation of property. With the help of the historical and legal method, the modern stages of the development of the institute under consideration are determined. The basis of the study consists of an analysis of domestic legislative and doctrinal provisions based on the formal legal method. The use of such techniques allows us to identify common approaches to the consideration of legal problems and are characteristic of all sciences, including criminal law.

The genesis of property confiscation. From the legal point of view , the existence of the institution of confiscation of property can be considered:

– as a type of punishment until December 2003;

– the period of confiscation of property by criminal procedural means;

– and since July 2006 as another measure of a criminal nature.

The institution of confiscation of property as a form of punishment until December 2003 was studied in detail by such authors as I. M. Tsokueva [1], I. I. Golubov [2], K. N. Shutov [3], A.V. Stepanishchev [4], V. A. Pimonov [5].

The unique history of the development of the institute in question begins with the first mentions in the Russian Truth. Special attention should be paid to the Soviet period, during which one of the key elements of the resistance of representatives of the overthrown class was the confiscation of property. Further transformation in the post-Soviet years is associated with the liquidation of this institution as a relic of Soviet power, which seemed very controversial.

The researchers believed that the purpose of the punishment during the confiscation of property was to strengthen criminal responsibility for committing a mercenary criminal act. It was proposed to preserve the punishment in cases of serious crimes of a mercenary nature. In addition, the authors identified numerous problems of the existence of sanctions in the form of confiscation of property, in particular, not all mercenary elements of crimes contained this type of punishment.

In December 2003, the domestic legislator took measures to humanize criminal legislation. Taking into account the very low effectiveness of such a type of punishment as confiscation of property, it is proposed to exclude it from the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, replacing it with a fine as an additional type of punishment. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that property acquired by criminal means is subject to confiscation in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (Explanatory Note to the draft Federal Law No. 162-FZ dated 08.12.2003 "On Amendments and Additions to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation").

During the absence of confiscation of property in criminal law, N. V. Viskov [6] draws attention to the special confiscation of property, in which special attention is given to criminal procedural means of ensuring that in the period under consideration by the author was particularly relevant.

In July 2006, law-making bodies, in connection with the adoption of the Federal Law "On Ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism" and the Federal Law "On Countering Terrorism", amend certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation (Explanatory Note to the draft Federal Law No. 153-FZ of 27.07.2006 "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation In connection with the adoption of the Federal Law "On Ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism" and the Federal Law "On Countering Terrorism"). The first version of the bill provided for amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation aimed at establishing the procedure for the confiscation of money, valuables and other property, not only obtained as a result of criminal acts, but also used to finance terrorism or extremist activities, as well as to consolidate the norm according to which such property in urgent cases is subject to arrest on the basis of an investigator's decision without obtaining a court decision. Before the preliminary consideration of the draft law submitted to the State Duma, amendments were adopted concerning the implementation of the provisions of international legal acts, according to which the deprivation of the material basis of terrorism is one of the means of combating terrorism, the Criminal Code is supplemented by a new chapter "other measures of criminal legal impact", which enshrines the provisions on the confiscation of property (articles 1041 – 1043 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). According to a court decision, money, valuables and other property obtained as a result of the commission of a crime or used or intended for the financing of terrorism, an organized criminal group, an illegal armed formation, a criminal community or a crime, as well as tools, equipment and other means of committing a crime, are subject to confiscation.

The return to criminal legislation of the institution of confiscation of property with the transformation from an additional type of punishment to another measure of criminal legal impact actualized a number of studies devoted to a new legal phenomenon. D. Y. Borchenko [7] was one of the first to define the concept, nature, social purpose and procedure for the application of confiscation of property in a new format for Russian legal reality.

The peak of scientific activity on property confiscation issues occurred in 2010, when about five dissertations on various aspects of the functioning of this institute were defended.

V. B. Abramenko [8] considers the confiscation of property as a means of preventing crimes in the sphere of economic activity. Criminal law prevention is traditionally at the forefront of countering crime, thereby the author emphasizes in his research the promising possibilities of minimizing such crimes.

A. A. Propostin [9] considers this institution a little more broadly, defining it as a measure to combat crime, and certainly suitable arguments are reflected on the pages of the manuscript. Other authors [10; 11; 12] describe the current state of another measure of a criminal-legal nature, characterize it as an institution of criminal law, determine its place in the current criminal legislation.

Further, a number of [13; 14; 15] authors conduct a study based on changes in the social in the field we are considering, special attention should be paid to historical, comparative legal and criminal aspects.

It is a very fair statement by A. I. Korobeev and Yu. I. Kuleshov [16, p. 56] that as a result, the confiscation of property in its current form appears as a kind of symbiosis of a previously known type of punishment with the same name and a criminal procedural measure (usually referred to as "special" confiscation). Attention is also drawn to the fact that the criminal law does not regulate (unlike compulsory medical measures) the grounds and procedure for the application of confiscation of property.

In accordance with Article 104.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, five categories of property are subject to confiscation, including tools, equipment or other means of committing a crime. An important aspect was noted by A. I. Chuchaev [17, p. 13] that the confiscation of the instrument of crime is also provided for in paragraph 1 of Part 3 of Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. In this case, we mean only the instruments of the crime recognized as material evidence in accordance with the procedure established by law, whereas criminal legislation does not contain such a restriction.

The main essential feature distinguishing confiscation as a punishment from confiscation as another measure of a criminal nature is the nature of the seized property. When punishing a convicted person, property legally acquired by him and not used to commit a crime is seized. The application of another measure of a criminal-legal nature – property that has been criminally obtained or used to violate a criminal prohibition is seized – does not entail additional encumbrance, but serves as a way to restore the violated right and prevent the commission of other crimes [18, p. 23-25].

Foreign researchers [19, p. 305] drew attention to the important question of how to treat the profit that a criminal receives from activities, including stories about their criminal actions, publishing books describing their actions or creating videos and subsequent distribution on digital platforms with a detailed description of their crimes. The authors argue that the proceeds derived from knowledge obtained as a result of criminal acts should be considered as indirect proceeds of crime and should be confiscated. This issue is also relevant for our domestic reality, "public" with stories about various crimes, criminals and criminal communities are actively popularized in social networks.

Thus, having considered the history of the development of confiscation of property, it is possible to state the unique aspects inherent only in this institution. There are quite a few works devoted to confiscation of property as a punishment, including dissertations. During the period of application as a punishment, there were many problems both in scientific and law enforcement aspects. The abolition of confiscation as a criminal punishment has not freed our law enforcement officers from the obligation to seize criminal property within the framework of criminal procedure legislation.

The current state of criminal law confiscation of property. The ambiguity of understanding the essence of the confiscation of property has actually led to the complete destruction as a crime prevention measure. The current situation hinders the understanding of the objective role of the mechanism of criminal law regulation and its further improvement in the process of legislative and law enforcement activities. In this regard, there is a need for a comprehensive study of the confiscation of property in criminal law, taking into account the latest innovations and trends in legal construction.

According to A.V. Kulikov and Yu. A. Hibners, the problem of applying the rule on confiscation of property is the basis necessary for it – a guilty verdict. Accordingly, the legislation does not limit the limits of judicial discretion in any way and does not determine dependence on any circumstances. Proceeding from this, the unrestricted right of the court in relation to the confiscation of property creates conditions for corruption and is ineffective for a positive impact on crime [20, pp. 39-46].

M. M. Kulish rightly points out in his research [21, p. 100-102] that property that was issued to other persons under fictitious transactions for the purpose of concealment is also subject to confiscation. If, after the execution of the penalty in the form of confiscation of property, but before the expiration of the statutory limitation period of the court's conviction, other non-confiscated property that was acquired by the convicted person before the sentencing or at least after it was pronounced, but with funds subject to confiscation, the court that issued the sentence, or the court at the place of execution of the sentence on upon presentation of the bailiff, the court issues a ruling on the foreclosure of the discovered property, if it is subject to confiscation by law.

Confiscation of instruments and means of crime has a procedural and preventive nature, when things are seized to eliminate the public danger emanating from the properties of these things when they are used. Therefore, codes often explicitly state that such things are seized in order to prevent the commission of subsequent crimes or eliminate danger to society. According to its content, this form of confiscation refers to security measures according to S. V. Zemlyukov [22, pp. 76-79].

K. D. Nikolaev [23, p. 10-14] proposes a classification of confiscation of property depending on the legal nature of the norms regulating it. Based on this criterion, such types of confiscation of property are distinguished as: 1) international law; 2) constitutional law; 3) criminal law; 4) criminal procedure; 5) administrative law; 6) civil law; 7) civil procedure; 8) customs law; 9) tax law; 10) land law and others .

The practical significance of this classification lies in the fact that it allows you to determine the place of the rules on the confiscation of property, which should be located in the relevant legislative acts related to a particular branch of law.

K. Y. Filipson and N. A. Ryabinin [24, pp. 54-61] believe that it is impossible to confiscate property that is in illegal possession due to the absence of ownership rights to it from the unscrupulous party. In this regard, it seems impossible from a legal point of view to transfer rights and obligations through compulsory succession. For this transfer of rights, it is necessary that the legal successor has such rights and obligations on a legal basis. In the case of the acquisition of property by illegal means, the ownership right to it does not arise, which means that it cannot be transferred and terminated by confiscation. Also, all encumbrances related to non-existent property rights are not transferable. We believe that it is impossible to transfer to the legal successor those rights that do not belong to the legal successor on a legal basis.

The authors' arguments are essential and correct for the idea of restoring social justice, maintaining the principle that no one has the right to receive income from criminal activity, however, despite the high standards of the legal mechanism for combating crime, law enforcement does not always reflect the declared ideals.

The idea of countering organized crime and terrorism by depriving offenders of the proceeds of their criminal activities has taken a central place in national and international law enforcement and security programs. In one of the studies [25, pp. 495-515], the authors conclude that the confiscation of property seems to have little relation to the public damage caused by crimes that bring illegal income. Instead, according to the data, law enforcement agencies are focusing on "easy targets", "low-hanging fruit". This confirms the argument often cited in the criminological literature that the less influential are usually victims of the law enforcement process, while the richer and more privileged have more opportunities to avoid punishment and criminalization.

Table No. 1.

 

The main statistical indicators of the state of criminal record in Russia for 2003-2021 (Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. URL: http://www.cdep.ru/)

 

 

 

 

2003

16 663

2013

920

2004

h

2014

1 178

2005

h

2015

1 810

2006

h

2016

1 934

2007

32

2017

2 059

2008

641

2018

2 459

2009

800

2019

2 618

2010

849

2020

2 580

2011

700

2021

3 463

2012

954

 

 

 

 

 

If we study the application of confiscation of property (Article 104.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) (see Table No. 1), then we confirm the arguments of foreign researchers. The measure is not applied to those compositions of the special part for which such a counteraction mechanism was created. For example, in 2021, the courts applied the measure we are considering 3,463 times, of which 60% (2,084) for illegal actions and violation of the rules for handling narcotic drugs, psychotropic and potent substances, and then, based on the materials of forensic investigative practice, confiscate mainly the instruments of the crime, not the property, obtained during the crime.

Also interesting are the results of the application of Chapter 21 "Crimes against property" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation – 6.5% (247) among 218,396 persons brought to justice; Chapter 24 "Crimes against public safety" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation – 4% (140) where such measures should be applied in order to counter terrorism, extremism in Chapter 29 "Crimes against the foundations of the constitutional order and state security" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation – 0.49% (17), Chapter 30 "Crimes against state power, interests of public service and service in local self–government" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - 10% (355) on corruption. Hardly anyone will object about the effectiveness and expediency of the existence of confiscation of property in its current form.

Such results are associated with defects in the content of the norms of Chapter 15.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to S. S. Bosholov and V. G. Tatarnikov [26, pp. 66-78]. Since, according to the previous legislation, the confiscation of property as an additional measure of punishment was punitive in nature and concerned the property of the convicted person, formally obtained legally and was his property, this made it possible to apply this type of punishment to persons guilty of large-scale embezzlement, corruption crimes, other grave and especially grave crimes and in cases where the stolen valuables, the subject of the bribe, etc. were not found during the investigation, lost by the guilty person or spent.

On the other hand, if the object of the crime, for example, money or other valuables received as a bribe, is still found in the possession of the perpetrator, then there are no grounds for the confiscation of property in relation to other property of the perpetrator, within the meaning of the current legislation. This is also, in our opinion, nothing more than another paradox of law enforcement practice.

According to some authors [27, p. 63-67], confiscation of property should again become an additional punishment in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, while there should be not only a closed list of all its compositions for which it is applied, but also the procedure for its application in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and also the types of property that are not subject to confiscation. For crimes related to corruption, terrorism and drug trafficking, confiscation should become a mandatory additional punishment.

A.V. Kulikov and Yu.A. Hibners [28, pp. 13-17] also propose to increase the effectiveness of the use of confiscation of property as another measure of a criminal law nature by introducing a number of changes to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, in particular: to give a different expansive wording in Article 104.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph 1 part 3 of Article 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; to abandon the restrictive list of crimes for which confiscation of property is prescribed; to expand the list of property that can be seized.

The transformation of the institute into another measure of a criminal-legal nature, as practice shows, has not cleared them of problems and there are questions of further improvement. In fact, the property of the guilty person is not subject to confiscation, even if its value is several times higher than the criminal's legal income. As a result of the complexity of the mechanism of such proof, criminals remain unpunished.

Conclusions and recommendations.

The mechanism proposed by the legislator does not form an effective deterrent barrier that would affect the state, dynamics and structure of crime. And if so, then a new mechanism is needed. If this is not another measure, then this is a kind of beginning of a positive impact on crime. We should proceed from the paradigm – only the property that is criminal can be confiscated.

At the same time, the new social and legal reality requires a comprehensive study of the institution of confiscation of property, taking into account its unique history. Unjustified legal changes have distorted the very purpose of the institute under study, which allows us to conclude about its theoretical and applied relevance.

The current state requires theoretical and applied research of property confiscation in criminal law, within the framework of which it is necessary to determine the fundamental theoretical categories that allow further study of property confiscation and its development in the domestic theory of criminal law, criminology and penal enforcement law.

It is necessary to revive the existing institution and resolve issues of ensuring the goals of criminal law. The damage caused by crimes is estimated at about 7 billion rubles, shadow hundreds of billions, approximately 100 million are reimbursed. The situation contradicts the general rule of countering crime.

In further studies, it is planned to collect and study data in legislative and law enforcement activities. The materials obtained will allow us to develop measures aimed at improving the Russian criminal legislation in terms of confiscation of property.

References
1. Tsokueva, I. M. Criminal penalties of a property nature: Types, evolution, prospects : dissertation ... Candidate of Legal Sciences : 12.00.08. – Krasnodar, 1997. – 189 p.
2. Golubov, I. I. Confiscation of property as a type of criminal punishment : dissertation ... Candidate of Legal Sciences : 12.00.08. – Moscow, 1999. – 181 p.
3. Shutov, K. N. Confiscation of property in the Russian criminal and penal enforcement legislation : dissertation... Candidate of Legal Sciences : 12.00.08. – Tomsk, 2000. – 168 p.
4. Stepanishchev, A.V. Problems of legal regulation of the use of confiscation of property : dissertation ... Candidate of Legal Sciences : 12.00.08. – Moscow, 2000. – 172 p .
5. Pimonov, V. A. Confiscation of property as a type of punishment in criminal law : dissertation ... Candidate of Legal Sciences : 12.00.08. – Moscow, 2002. – 187 p.
6. Viskov N. V. Special confiscation: legal nature, criminal law and criminal procedural means of enforcement : dissertation ... Candidate of Legal Sciences : 12.00.08, 12.00.09. – Volgograd, 2006. – 222 p.
7. Borchenko D. Y. Confiscation of property as a measure of a criminal nature: concept, nature, social purpose and procedure of application : dissertation... Candidate of Legal Sciences : 12.00.08 / Borchenko Denis Yurievich. – Togliatti, 2007. – 199 p.
8. Abramenko V. B. Confiscation of property as a means of preventing crimes in the sphere of economic activity : dissertation ... Candidate of Legal Sciences : 12.00.08 / Abramenko Valery Borisovich. – Moscow, 2010. – 200 p.
9. Propostin A. A. Confiscation of property as a measure to combat crime: past, present, future : dissertation... Candidate of Legal Sciences : 12.00.08 / Propostin Andrey Alexandrovich. – Tomsk, 2010. – 240 p.
10. Malyshev A. N. Confiscation of property in criminal law: dissertation... Candidate of Legal Sciences : 12.00.08 / Malyshev Alexander Nikolaevich. – Moscow, 2010. – 191 p.
11. Martynenko E. V. Confiscation of property in the current Russian criminal law : dissertation ... Candidate of Legal Sciences : 12.00.08 / Martynenko Eduard Vladimirovich. – Moscow, 2010. – 239 p.
12. Tolkov D. V. Confiscation of property as an institution of criminal law : dissertation ... Candidate of Legal Sciences : 12.00.08 / Dmitry Vasilyevich Tolkov. – Ryazan, 2010. – 196 p .
13. Samoylova S. Yu. Confiscation of property in Russian criminal legislation : dissertation ... Candidate of Legal Sciences : 12.00.08 / Svetlana Samoilova. – Omsk, 2011.-197 p .
14. Khachak R. A. Confiscation of property: historical, comparative-legal and criminal-legal aspects : dissertation ... Candidate of Legal Sciences : 12.00.08 / Khachak Ruslan Adamovich. – Krasnodar, 2011. – 218 p.
15. Kurlaeva O. V. Confiscation of property as a measure of state coercion : dissertation ... Candidate of Legal Sciences : 12.00.08 / Kurlaeva Oksana Vladimirovna. – Ryazan, 2013. – 170 p .
16. Korobeev A. I., Kuleshov Yu. I. Will Article 312 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation be in demand after the restoration of the institute of confiscation of property? // Criminal Law. – 2007. – No. 2. – pp. 55-58.
17. Chuchaev A. I. Confiscation returned to the Criminal Code, but in a different capacity // Legality. 2006. No. 9. pp. 12-13.
18. Mikhailov V. I. Confiscation of property: some issues of maintenance and implementation in the activities of bodies for the control of the turnover of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances // Narco-control. 2007. No. 1. pp. 22-27.
19. Mamak, K., Barczak-Oplustil, A., Kwiatkowski, D. et al. Should gains from criminal knowledge be forfeited?. Crime Law Soc Change 77, 305–320 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-021-09994-7
20. Kulikov A.V., Hibners Yu. A. Problems of appointment and application of confiscation of property // Proceedings of Tula State University. Economic and legal sciences. 2021. No. 1. pp. 39-46
21. Kulish M. M. The concept and classification of confiscation of property // Humanities, socio-economic and social sciences. 2016. No. 5. pp. 100-102.
22. Zemlyukov S. V. The institute of confiscation of property requires improvement // Proceedings of the Altai State University. 2016. ¹ 3 (91). C. 76–79.
23. Nikolaev K. D. Types of confiscation of property // Scientific Bulletin of the Omsk Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2016. No. 3 (62). pp. 10-14.
24. Filipson K. Yu., Ryabinin N. A. Features of the protection of subjective rights in the confiscation of property // Bulletin of the St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2020. No. 4 (88). pp. 54-61.
25. Chistyakova, Y., Wall, D.S. & Bonino, S. The Back-Door Governance of Crime: Confiscating Criminal Assets in the UK. Eur J Crim Policy Res 27, 495–515 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-019-09423-5
26. Bosholov S. S., Tatarnikov V. G. Paradoxes of legislative regulation of criminal liability for corruption-related crimes // Prologue: Journal of Law. 2021. No. 1 (29). pp. 66-78.
27. Kireeva Zh. B., Kudryashov K. V., Sankova A. A. Confiscation of property: actual problems of improving anti-corruption legislation // Jurist-Pravoved. 2020. No.2 (93). pp. 63-67.
28. Kulikov, A.V. The problem of the effectiveness of the institute of confiscation of property / A.V. Kulikov, Yu. A. Hibners // Bulletin of the Kaliningrad branch of the St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2021. No. 1(63). pp. 13-17

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the study, as follows from the title of the work submitted for review, is the problem of the current state of criminal law confiscation of property. In fact, the research topic has not been disclosed, which will be shown in the future. The research methodology is defined in the text of the work as follows: "During the work, it is planned to use a basic, universal method of studying the most general laws of nature, society and thinking in their development – dialectical. There are also such techniques that define common approaches to the consideration of legal problems and are characteristic of all sciences, including criminal law. These include: analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, comparative law, system-structural and historical-legal". The author needs to clearly distinguish between general scientific and private scientific research methods (the latter include comparative legal and historical legal methods). The relevance of the chosen research topic is not clearly defined. The scientist points out that "The institution of confiscation of property deserves special attention, which has undergone ambiguous changes and very controversial consequences," but does not specify what kind of changes and consequences these were. Some provisions determining the relevance of the research topic are contained in the main part of the work ("... there is a need for a comprehensive study of property confiscation in criminal law, taking into account the latest innovations and trends in legal construction. At the same time, the new social and legal reality requires a comprehensive study of the institution of confiscation of property, taking into account its unique history. Unjustified legal changes have distorted the very purpose of the institute under study, which allows us to conclude about its theoretical and applied relevance", etc.). This violates the logic of the presentation of the material. The author listed the names of scientists who were engaged in the study of the problems raised in the work, but did not mention which specific issues remained beyond the attention of researchers. The scientific novelty of the work is not indicated in the text of the article. In fact, it is missing. The article lists well-known facts, and in general it has the character of an introduction to an upcoming scientific study. The scientific style of the research is fully sustained by the author. The structure of the work is quite logical. In the introductory part of the article, the author makes an attempt to substantiate the relevance of the research topic, reveals its methodology and lists the names of a number of scientists who devoted their scientific works to the same topic. The main part of the article consists of two sections: "The genesis of property confiscation", "The current state of criminal law confiscation of property". The final part of the work contains general conclusions and recommendations based on the results of the study. The content of the work corresponds to its title, but is not without a number of significant drawbacks. As already noted, the author needs to finalize the introductory part of the study. One of the subsections of the work is called "The genesis of property confiscation". In fact, it is not about the origin of the relevant legal institution, but about the interpretations of the essence of the concept of "confiscation of property" existing in the legal literature. The author only mentions that the foundations of this institution were laid back in the Russian Truth. The scientist does not disclose the essence of confiscation of property as a form of punishment. The author does not explain why some scientists consider the confiscation of property to be a "relic of Soviet power." The scientist does not offer his original definition of the concept of "confiscation of property", does not indicate all its aspects. The author does not indicate which elements of mercenary crimes enshrined in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation at one time did not imply the application of such a sanction as confiscation of property, although this would be logical. The scientist does not explain why such a type of criminal punishment as confiscation of property has shown its ineffectiveness in practice. The author does not disclose what the confiscation of property was in its criminal procedural aspect. The scientist does not define the concept of "other measures of criminal legal influence". The author defines in general terms the positions of V. B. Abramenko, A. A. Propostin and others regarding the understanding of the essence of confiscation of property, but does not carry out their critical analysis, does not offer his original concept. The bibliography of the study is presented by 18 sources (dissertations, statistical and analytical materials). From the point of view, this is quite enough, from the actual point of view, the author did not show that the sources used in writing the article were studied by him with due attention and depth. The theoretical basis of the work needs to be expanded by referring to scientific articles by V. K. Andrianov, Z. H. Zokirzoda, S. M. Inshakov, A.V. Kulikov, E. V. Martynenko, Yu. V. Nikolaeva, A. A. Petrov, A. A. Romanenko, A.V. Chunin, L. D. Khabibova, E. O. Yakovleva, etc. This will help the author to express new scientific ideas, clarify the provisions of the work, increase the degree of discussion of the problems under consideration, and so on. There is no appeal to opponents as such; the author refers to certain scientific works in support of his judgments. The scientist does not enter into a scientific discussion. There are conclusions based on the results of the study ("The mechanism proposed by the legislator does not form an effective deterrent barrier that would affect the state, dynamics and structure of crime. And if so, then a new mechanism is needed. If this is not another measure, then this is some kind of beginning of a positive impact on crime. It should be based on the paradigm that only property that is criminal can be confiscated," etc.), but they do not have the property of scientific novelty, and therefore need clarification and specification (due to which factors the mechanism of confiscation of property proposed by the legislator is not effective; what kind of improvement it needs, etc.). The article needs additional proofreading by the author. It contains typos, punctuation and stylistic errors. The interest of the readership in the presented article can be shown, first of all, by specialists in the field of criminal law, provided that it is substantially improved: additional justification of the relevance of the research topic, clarification of its methodology, expansion of the theoretical base of the work, introduction of elements of scientific novelty and discussion, clarification and concretization of a number of provisions of the work and conclusions based on the results of the study, elimination of shortcomings in the design of the article.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

A REVIEW of an article on the topic "The current state of criminal law confiscation of property". The subject of the study. The article proposed for review is devoted to topical issues of the current state of "... criminal law confiscation of property", as stated in the article. The author has chosen a special subject of research: the proposed issues are investigated from the point of view of criminal law and criminal procedure, while the author notes that "The institution of confiscation of property deserves special attention, which has undergone ambiguous changes and very controversial consequences. No one should receive the proceeds of crime." The study mainly examines legislation (the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the CPC of the Russian Federation) and statistics of court decisions (without citing statistics from 2021. for some reason) "The main statistical indicators of the state of criminal record in Russia for 2003-2020" and is indirectly related to the purpose of the study. A certain amount of scientific literature on the stated issues is also studied and summarized (although all relatively "old" - 1997-2013 and only two works by foreign authors in 2019 and 2021). At the same time, the author notes that "... understanding the high relevance of the group of public relations we are considering, within the framework of this scientific It is necessary to investigate the current state of the institution of confiscation of property, identify the current stages of development and develop further ways of improvement as a basis for further research." Which, in general, has not been done, the entire analysis of the current state of "... criminal law confiscation of property" was reduced to a review of the works of 2006-2007.Research methodology. The purpose of the study is determined by the title and content of the work "... it is necessary to investigate the current state of the institution of confiscation of property, identify the current stages of development and work out further ways to improve ...". It can be designated as the consideration and resolution of certain problematic aspects related to the above-mentioned issues and the use of certain experience (which is missing in the article). Based on the set goals and objectives, the author has chosen a certain methodological basis for the study. In particular, the author declares the use of a set of general scientific ("dialectical, statistical, historical and legal"), special legal methods of cognition. In particular, the methods of analysis and synthesis made it possible to summarize and separate the conclusions of various approaches to the proposed topic, as well as draw some conclusions from the materials of the opponents. The most important role was played by special legal methods. In particular, the author used a formal legal method, which allowed for the analysis and interpretation of the norms of current legislation (CC and CPC). The author notes: "The ambiguity of understanding the essence of confiscation of property has actually led to the complete destruction as a crime prevention measure. The current situation hinders the understanding of the objective role of the mechanism of criminal law regulation and its further improvement in the process of legislative and law enforcement activities ...". In particular, the following conclusions are drawn: "The mechanism proposed by the legislator does not form an effective deterrent barrier that would affect the state, dynamics and structure of crime. And if so, then a new mechanism is needed. If this is not another measure, then this is some kind of beginning of a positive impact on crime..." etc. Thus, the methodology chosen by the author is not fully adequate to the purpose of the article, it allows you to study certain aspects of the topic. The relevance of the stated issues is beyond doubt. This topic is one of the most important both in Russia and in the world, and from a legal point of view, the work proposed by the author can be considered relevant, namely, he notes that "The current state of crime, namely the last ten years, has been characterized by a general tendency to reduce the number of registered criminal acts. The global policy of humanizing criminal legislation undoubtedly has a positive impact on the formation of the legal and democratic foundations of the state." The author also provides recommendations and general proposals: "It should be based on the paradigm that only property that is criminal can be confiscated." Thus, scientific research in the proposed field is only to be welcomed. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty of the proposed article is questionable. It is not expressed in the specific scientific conclusions of the author. Among them, for example, is the following: "Unjustified legal changes have distorted the very purpose of the institute under study, which allows us to conclude about its theoretical and applied relevance." But as you can see, these and other "theoretical" conclusions are not new, but they can be used in further scientific research, as the author says: "In further research, it is planned to collect and study data in lawmaking and law enforcement activities. The materials obtained will allow us to develop measures aimed at improving Russian criminal legislation in terms of confiscation of property." Thus, the materials of the article as presented may be of some interest to the scientific community, but not in terms of contribution to the development of science. This interest can only be expressed in the analysis, but not of the current state, but of a certain stage of research (2006-2007). Style, structure, content. The subject of the article corresponds to the specialization of the journal "Police and Investigative activities", as it is devoted to topical issues of the state of "... criminal law confiscation of property", but not modern. The article contains an analysis of the opponents' scientific works, so the author notes that this question has already been raised, but in a slightly different way. The content of the article does not quite correspond to the title, since the author considered the stated problems, but did not achieve the purpose of his research. The quality of the presentation of the study and its results should be recognized as incomplete. The subject, tasks, and methodology directly follow from the text of the article, but this does not apply to scientific novelty, the results of legal research. The design of the work generally meets the requirements for this kind of work. No significant violations of these requirements were found. Bibliography. The quality of the literature used ("outdated"), which is actively used by the author, should not be highly appreciated. Many studies have been written and conducted in recent years, it is necessary to refer to them to complete the current author's research. Thus, the works of the above authors correspond to the topic of the study, but they do not have a sign of sufficiency in everything, they contribute to the disclosure of certain aspects of the topic. Appeal to opponents. The author conducted a serious analysis of the state of the problem under study, but not the current one, but for the period 2006-2013. The author describes different points of view on the problem, tries to argue a certain common position, and offers some, also general, solutions to individual problems. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The conclusions are logical, but general, not exactly proven, they are obtained using a generally accepted methodology. The article in this form may be of interest to the readership in terms of the presence of the author's positions in it in relation to the issues stated in the article. Based on the above, summing up all the positive and negative sides of the article, I recommend "sending it for revision".

Third Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of this study is the state of the institution of confiscation of property in the field of criminal law relations. The research methodology provides for a practical and theoretical orientation. The author used such methods as dialectical, statistical. At the same time, official data were examined to confirm the hypothesis of improving the institution of confiscation of property. Applying the historical and legal method, the author formulated the modern stages of the development of the institution of confiscation. The work also used methods of analysis, formal and legal. Such methods helped the author to identify common approaches to the consideration of legal problems and are characteristic of all sciences, including criminal law. The relevance of the chosen topic is due to the formation of confiscation in modern realities. This institution has undergone changes at various historical stages of Russia's development. Now a number of areas, including criminal law, require adjustments to the implementation and mechanisms for the implementation of confiscation. Scientific novelty is reflected in the author's developments, conclusions and proposals. The style of the article is scientific. According to the structure, the presented work consists of sections relevance, degree of scientific development. Next, the author proceeds to the main part, where he examines the genesis of property confiscation and the current state of criminal confiscation of property. The article concludes with conclusions and recommendations. Having considered the history of the confiscation of property, the author identifies unique aspects inherent only to this institution. The author concludes that during the period of confiscation as a punishment, there were many problems in scientific and law enforcement aspects. The abolition of confiscation as a criminal punishment has not freed Russian law enforcement officers from the obligation to seize criminal property within the framework of criminal procedure legislation. The author's study of the main statistical indicators of the state of criminal record in Russia for 2003-2021, which is given in the work, is also interesting. As a result of the analysis, the author identifies some paradoxes of the institution under study. In particular, there is a conclusion that if the object of the crime, for example, money or other valuables received as a bribe, is still found in the possession of the perpetrator, then there are no grounds for the confiscation of property in relation to other property of the perpetrator, within the meaning of current legislation. One of the key conclusions of the author is that the mechanism proposed by the legislator does not form an effective deterrent barrier that would affect the state, dynamics and structure of crime. The author believes that a new mechanism is needed and proceeds from the paradigm that only property that is criminal can be confiscated. The author's conclusion is also interesting that unjustified legal changes have distorted the very purpose of the institute under study. The author also concludes that it is necessary to revive the existing institution and resolve issues of ensuring the goals of criminal law. The damage caused by crimes is estimated at about 7 billion rubles, the shadow is hundreds of billions, and approximately 100 million are reimbursed. The situation contradicts the general rule of combating crime. The bibliography is presented by twenty-eight sources, which are dated in the period 1997-2022. The institution of confiscation was considered on the basis of current sources. The article is of reader's interest and can be published.